Talk:Khanzada

This article has been time and again edited and facts have been twisted.Reference no 1 indicates that Khanzada is division of Mewati tribe. However someone has time and again tried to include Jadon parent branch of Khanzada. It is historically proved that Hassan Khan Meo was a mewati and belonged to that tribe. PhilosophicView (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC) khanzada are old ruller of mewat,mewat was the kingdom of khanzadas.khanzada are Jadon Rajput,they except islam,

This article is a propaganda which is unclear and encourages conversion to islam
This article is a propaganda which is unclear and encourages conversion to islam.

Khanzada were converted by Feroz Shah
Khanzada's were Yaduvanshi's and were converted by Firoz Shah.

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=uet9TZDgJpDMrQemofDHBQ&ct=result&id=-AO2AAAAIAAJ&dq=Jadon+ahirs&q=Jadon+

Bahadur Nahir was the founder of Khanzada
Haryana State Gazetteer: Lacks special title

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=VV-dTZ_4KcXorAeDsZW-BA&ct=result&id=kYsMAQAAMAAJ&dq=yaduvanshi+rajputs&q=khanzada

famous khanzada's
Forgive me but this section looks more like a Khanzada directory of Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahaam (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of authentic references made this article Trustworthy
This article is heavily backed by the references from the Gazetteer of States (former and present, both), as well as with Archaelogical Survey of India, and many more other referenced sources on which historians rely on. Moreover, most of the referenced sources are now in Public Domain, and are easily accessible for their authenticity (Various world famous universities had made these documents available online). However, if someone still needs a further information then the concerned Governments can be contacted for their documents ( i.e., Gazetteer, survey reports, etc ) that they published in the past and still they stand on those documents. Khanzadah Jadon Rajput (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Gazetteers and the ASI are not necessarily good sources. They are old, they are contradictory, they are often the work of amateurs, they have huge problems with translation and transliteration ... and they often leave more unsaid than they actually reveal. They also rely far too much on guesswork, far too much on even older sources, and far too much on each other - the "house of cards" problem. It is my general experience that modern commentators do not rely very much on the things, other than the Anthropological Survey of India, which itself is a pretty poor source and a massively political exercise (just as the British Raj efforts were).


 * Alas, in my attempts to fix this article so far I have had to rely extensively on these very poor sources. That is partly because of the state of the thing in the first place, and partly because I simply do not have the time to trawl through a lot of snippet views and then request more detailed versions from the folks at WP:RX etc. Usually, I would dismiss these things pretty much straight away ... and in the case of this article, where a lot of the gazetteers etc are using James Tod as a basis for their understanding, that would usually be an even more strident reaction. Tod is hopeless and ranks pretty close to the top of my list of books that I would burn.


 * So, the challenge is for people to find more modern sources. We really should not need to rely on 100+ year old works. The article is much better than a few days ago, but it is not an effort in which I have any sense of pride. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Khanzadas are Jadubansi Rajputs
They embraced Islam long before the existence of Pakistan as a nation, so please mark this article as WikiProject India instead of WikiProject Pakistan.. Just wondering why the historical records are not taken into cosideration while marking the article as wikiproject.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanzadah Jadon Rajput (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading
History records are sufficient enough to show the Khanzadas are Jadubansi Rajputs and they are under the folds of Islam from the early decades of 14th century. Also, at that time there was no concept of Two Nation Theory, and they lived in the core parts of India - Eastern Rajputana prominently and Braj region. It is fine, some decided to settle in Pakistan but there is still a good number of Khanzadas in India.. So, this article should be in India domain as well, if not in Indian domain only. Khanzadah Jadon Rajput (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Better to retain the original article "Khanzada" only
It will be good to retain the original article on Khanzada i.e., "Khanzada" instead of "Khanzada Rajputs". Reason the term Khanzada itself means Rajput, and originally it was used by Rajputs of Jadubansi clan only. Later in the 19th century other Rajputs also started using this term, however, the term Khanzada is still used for Jadubansi Rajputs only in India. Other use it with their clan names, region, e.g., Khanzada of Nagaur, Khanzada of Awadh. Khanzadah Jadon Rajput (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have merged the content here in any event. The two articles were virtually identical and both very, very poor: I fixed the other one up a bit, then merged it into this one. I also scrubbed a lot of utter nonsense from this one, such as a long, hopelessly unencyclopedic list of so-called notable people & the numerous copyright violations of images etc. Let's start over. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep up your good work, what a coincidence you are updating this article just a day after the Lunar eclipse.. Khanzadah Jadon Rajput (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Lakhan Pal
I get the feeling that Lakhan Pal is either Bahadur Khan or his father. Can anyone provide a source to confirm this? - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Or they could be pretty much a mythical connection, as most of the historians seem to think? - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Lakhan Pal is the father, of Bahadur Khan per "Census of India 1901", "Report of a tour in eastern Rajputana in 1882-83", and ASI Reports vol 20. Original name given as Sambhar Pal, also known as Badahur Nahal.  JanetteDoe (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, great minds think alike, eh? I'd just spotted that a few minutes before your posting. This stuff can be so confusing sometimes, especially when people do not provide proper citations in the first instance. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Fateh Jang
Before anyone considers reinstating the info about Fateh Jang, please bear in mind that he appears to have been a Pathan, per Cunningham, Vol XX, p. 120. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)